HILARIO P. SORIANO and ROSALINDA ILAGAN, petitioners, vs.

PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP), and PHILIPPINE
DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC), respondents. G.R. Nos.
159517-18. June 30, 2009.*
Motion to Quash; The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored
on Section 3(a), Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency
of the averments in the information; that is, whether the facts alleged, if
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense
charged as defined by law. Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners
against the charge under the information must be proved by them during trial. Such
facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the
information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute the
offense.
Facts: Soriano and Ilagan were the President and General Manager, respectively, of
the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM). Allegedly, on June 27, 1997
and August 21, 1997, during their incumbency as president and manager of the
bank, petitioners indirectly obtained loans from RBSM. They falsified the loan
applications and other bank records, and made it appear that Virgilio J. Malang and
Rogelio Maaol obtained loans of P15M each, when in fact they did not.
The prosecutor charged Soriano in the RTC with violation of Section 83 of R.A. No.
337 or the General Banking Act, as amended or Violation of the Director, Officer,
Stockholder or Related Interest (DOSRI) Rules (DOSRI Rules). An information for
estafa thru falsification of commercial document was also filed against Soriano and
Ilagan.
Petitioners moved to quash the informations arguing that the prosecutor charged
more than one offense for a single act. Soriano was charged with violation of DOSRI
rules and estafa thru falsification of commercial document for allegedly securing
fictitious loans. They further argued that the facts as alleged in the information do
not constitute an offense. RTC denied the motion to quash. CA sustained the denial
of petitioners separate motions to quash.
Issue: Whether or not the contention of the petitioner has merit.
Held: The contention has no merit.
In Loney v. People, this Court, in upholding the filing of multiple charges against the
accused, held:
As early as the start of the last century, this Court had ruled that a single act or
incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions
of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one offense. The
only limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice
put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. In People v. Doriquez, we
held that two (or more) offenses arising from the same act are not the same
x x x if one provision [of law] requires proof of an additional fact or element which
the other does not, x x x. Phrased elsewise, where two different laws (or articles of
the same code) define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to
a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each
crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other.
In this case, however, Soriano was faced not with one information charging more
than one offense, but with more than one information, each charging a different
offenseviolation of DOSRI rules in one, and estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents in the others. Ilagan, on the other hand, was charged with estafa thru
falsification of commercial documents in separate informations. Thus, petitioners
erroneously invoke duplicity of charges as a ground to quash the Informations.
The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored on Section 3(a),
Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the
averments in the information; that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically
admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined
by law.